Karec wrote:Are you suggesting there are instances that one should "illegally" hack a website if its justified? Because if so I do understand the reasoning behind it but I must warn you that type of hacking is kind of a forbidden topic around here.

It's not a forbidden topic according to the TOS. If I were to say "we should all hack example.com etc" then yes, that's forbidden. But saying that "I believe that we should use our powers for good and hack to protest against example.com" is fine, and banning that right is a form of censorship.Now you could argue that banning the first example is censorship, but it's illegal so it's entirely justified. But to ban a hypothetical topic or a debate about ethics is unjust.

PC_MAGAS wrote:SO LET ME TEL MY LAWS1st hack only sites related to crime2nd never hack sites related for good purpose such as ex greenpeace site

Ugh...Hacker Ethics:1. Access to computers - and anything that might teach you something about the way the world works - should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the hands-on imperative!2. All information should be free3. Mistrust Authority - promote decentralisation.4. Hackers should be be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race or position.

A 12 year old was allowed into the MIT computer labs where he was accepted by the hackers there in the 50s or 60s, however at the same time a cocky arrogant 18 year old wasn't.However that is a rarity.

The MIT hackers are not what most people would call hackers nowadays. They mostly programmed but they also lock hacked (they had access to every single room in the MIT computer labs, even the high security safes, but they didn't abuse this - the staff knew they had this access, often from entering their office in the morning to find a hacker sleeping on the couch, but they didn't destroy things and they had rules that the hackers followed). They also hacked the phone system (phreaking) and were able to make free calls. However, they didn't use this for profitable gain.

Basically:1. Hack for fun.2. If you find destroying things fun, you're not a hacker - don't hack.3. Do not cause any damage to systems you gain access (the only exception to this I would say is hacktivism).4. Once you are finished exploring, consider either patching their system or emailing the admin anonymously.5. Don't hack for profit.

We are seeing too many crackers which annoys me - at MIT they had a large computer (PDP-6) on which were stored many different peoples files. There were no passwords, this was no time-sharing computer (well, ok, it was later converted to one), but files were never deleted or vandalised. A lot of this is due to maturity - these guys were often quite young but they were still incredibly mature.

If you don't like what you see above me, you ain't no hacker. You're just one of these people who wants to be "i'm awesome, i can hack your ass off".

I admit that I break no. 5 above, however I only do this as it's one of the only ways I can realistically make money at the moment and as soon as something more legit comes up, I'll take that.

Ok Hacking is not to show off or to do illegal things because in the first case we r "empty buckets" and in second criminals but imagine hacking a site which sells drugs online by this action we prevent an illegal action won't be nice??

PC_MAGAS IS O VASILEUS OF COMPUTERSBUT FOR WOMEN I'M THE FAIRYTALE'S PRINCE

PC_MAGAS wrote:Ok Hacking is not to show off or to do illegal things because in the first case we r "empty buckets" and in second criminals but imagine hacking a site which sells drugs online by this action we prevent an illegal action won't be nice??

I personally support hacktivism - i.e. protesting using our skills with computers.I personally say that in this case it is fine to DoS or vandalise a site, as long as it is part of a protest and not just an excuse to have a crackerish moment.Others disagree with me there, but you have to make up your own mind on it.

there is a difference between crashing a site and destroying it.......... in which case DoS attacks (if you can sustain with only u/ur friends' computers) are the better alternative, however if it requires you to worm peoples' computers............. >.> it's not nice and it also stops being legit (the grayness of laws can be nice)

nosidius wrote:there is a difference between crashing a site and destroying it.......... in which case DoS attacks (if you can sustain with only u/ur friends' computers) are the better alternative, however if it requires you to worm peoples' computers............. >.> it's not nice and it also stops being legit (the grayness of laws can be nice)

lack of regard? i have developed bad grammar habits so as to increase typing speed, and pathetic? what about them is pathetic? i don't think that you should be destroying someone else's work.......... and it may be an attempt to catch those who DO that kind of thing >.>.............. we simply don't know, (ip-adress.com is a nice resource however)

First I just wanted to say that I think this is a great ethics discussion. I am sceptical though of the leaning towards hacktivism and the hacking (illegally) for profit. I don't believe that the ability to hack should give someone the oppurtunity or license to engage in some other political point that is not available to the non-hacking masses (i.e. crashing a site etc.). I also wonder at the hacker tenant that all information should and even must be free. Should nuclear secrets be free? Where is the line drawn on information; is personal information information that should be free?